MAX MOLLONPh.D. CANDIDATEINTERACTION DESIGN RESEARCH BY PRACTICE

SACRe PSL ENSADLab/ Sociable Media Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab

ANNIE GENTESASSOCIATE PR.INFORMATION ANDCOMMUNICATION SCIENCES

Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab & Media Studies

DESIGN RESEARCH CONFERENCE 2014UMEÅ, SWEDEN, 2014 JUNE 16-19TH

MAX MOLLONPh.D. CANDIDATEINTERACTION DESIGN RESEARCH BY PRACTICE

SACRe PSL ENSADLab/ Sociable Media Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab

ANNIE GENTESASSOCIATE PR.INFORMATION ANDCOMMUNICATION SCIENCES

Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab & Media Studies

DESIGN RESEARCH CONFERENCE 2014UMEÅ, SWEDEN, 2014 JUNE 16-19TH

THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT

THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT

PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES — ENGAGE REFLECTION — SPARK DISCUSSION

SCHÖN, D. A. (1983). THE REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER. BASIC BOOKS.

THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT

PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES — ENGAGE REFLECTION — SPARK DISCUSSION

SCHÖN, D. A. (1983). THE REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER. BASIC BOOKS.

THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT

PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES — ENGAGE REFLECTION — SPARK DISCUSSION

THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT

PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES — ENGAGE REFLECTION — SPARK DISCUSSION

KERRIDGE, T. (2009). DOES SPECULATIVE DESIGN CONTRIBUTE TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY?

THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT

PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES — ENGAGE REFLECTION — SPARK DISCUSSION

HOW DOES DESIGN UNSETTLE EMOTIONS

TO ENGAGE AN AUDIENCE?

THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT

HOW DOES DESIGN UNSETTLE EMOTIONS

TO ENGAGE AN AUDIENCE?

THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT

1. CONTEXT

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

3. USECASE

4. LARGER FRAMEWORK

ROADMAP CONTRIBUTIONS

ROADMAP CONTRIBUTIONS

1. CONTEXT

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

3. USECASE

4. LARGER FRAMEWORK

Playing on emotions as a way to engage the audience

Methodological insights:uncanny-enough artefacts

ROADMAP

1. CONTEXT

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

3. USECASE

4. LARGER FRAMEWORK

Methodological insights:uncanny-enough artefacts

Theoretical Framework: Classic Rhetoric

Playing on emotions as a way to engage the audience

Art of persuasion

CONTRIBUTIONS

1. CONTEXT

Speculative design, Conceptual design, Contestable futures, Cautionary tales, Activism,Design for debate, Design fiction, Discursive design, Interrogative design, Probe design, Radical design, Satire, Social fiction…

“

”

DUNNE, A. (2012) PERSONAL COMMUNICATION, DUBLIN, FEBRUARY 03RD

ARCHIGRAM, (70’S) MOVING CITIES. DUNNE & RABY, (2001) ELECTRO-DRAUGHT EXCLUDER, FROM PLACEBO PROJECT. AUGER-LOIZEAU, (2001) AUDIOTOOTH IMPLANT. JULIAN OLIVER, (2012) TRANSPARENCY GRENADE.

JAMES AUGER (RCA), JIMMY LOIZEAU (GOLDSMITH UNIVERSITY), FIONA RABBY (UAA VIENNA), ANTHONY DUNNE (RCA), JULIAN BLEEKER (NEARFUTURELAB), PAUL GARDIEN (PHILIPS), ARCHIGRAM (UK), JULIAN OLIVER (DE) (T-LEFT TO B-RIGHT)

JAMES AUGER (RCA), JIMMY LOIZEAU (GOLDSMITH UNIVERSITY), FIONA RABBY (UAA VIENNA), ANTHONY DUNNE (RCA), JULIAN BLEEKER (NEARFUTURELAB), PAUL GARDIEN (PHILIPS), ARCHIGRAM (UK), JULIAN OLIVER (DE) (T-LEFT TO B-RIGHT)

BARDZELL, S., BARDZELL, J., FORLIZZI, J., ZIMMERMAN, J., & ANTANITIS, J. (2012). CRITICAL DESIGN AND CRITICAL THEORY: THE CHALLENGE OF DESIGNING FOR PROVOCATION (PP. 288–297). PRESENTED AT THE MULTIPLE VALUES SELECTED, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA

BOSCH, T. (2012, 02 MARCH). SCI-FI WRITER BRUCE STERLING EXPLAINS THE INTRIGUING NEW CONCEPT OF DESIGN FICTION. SLATE.COM. RETRIEVED MARCH 2013, FROM HTTP://WWW.SLATE.COM/BLOGS/FUTURE_TENSE/2012/03/02/BRUCE_STERLING_ON_DESIGN_FICTIONS_. HTML

DUNNE, A., & RABY, F. (2001). DESIGN NOIR: THE SECRET LIFE OF ELECTRONIC OBJECTS. AUGUST MEDIA.

DUNNE, A. (2009). INTERPRETATION COLLABORATION, AND CRITIQUE. (R. RICKENBERG, ED.)WWW.DUNNEANDRABY.CO.UK. RETRIEVED FROM HTTP://WWW.DUNNEANDRABY.CO.UK/CONTENT/BYDANDR/465/0

FALLMAN, D. (2008). THE INTERACTION DESIGN RESEARCH TRIANGLE OF DESIGN PRACTICE, DESIGN STUDIES, AND DESIGN EXPLORATION. DESIGN ISSUES, 24(3), 4–18.

KERRIDGE, T. (2009). DOES SPECULATIVE DESIGN CONTRIBUTE TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? (PP. 1–18). PRESENTED AT THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SWISS DESIGN NETWORK SYMPOSIUM, LUGANO.

KIRBY, D. (2010). THE FUTURE IS NOW: DIEGETIC PROTOTYPES AND THE ROLE OF POPULAR FILMS IN GENERATING REAL-WORLD TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, 40(1), 41–70.

STERLING, B. (2009). DESIGN FICTION. INTERACTIONS, 16(3).

AUGER, J. H. (2012). WHY ROBOT? SPECULATIVE DESIGN, THE DOMESTICATION OF TECHNOLOGY AND THE CONSIDERED FUTURE. THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART.

BLEECKER, J. (2009). DESIGN FICTION. NEAR FUTURE LABORATORY.

DUNNE, A. (1999). HERTZIAN TALES: ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS, AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE AND CRITICAL DESIGN. LONDON: THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART COMPUTER RELATED DESIGN RESEARCH STUDIO.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW: UNCANNY

It was also necessary to provide a convincing description, in layman’s terms, of the technology involved. [...] This description helped in convincing those with a good understanding of electronic technology.(AUGER, 2012, P.158)

[…] the detail and finish of the artefacts, combined with the short explanations describing their functions and modes of interaction, entices the audience into exploring the concept further. (AUGER, 2012, P.145)

In this way the speculations appear convincing, plausible or personal, whilst at the same time new or alternative. (AUGER, 2012, P.180)

I want to highlight what the story does so as to fill out the meaning of the clue-construction device, to make it something legible despite its foreignness(BLEECKER, 2009, P.35).

For technological believability, the Audio Tooth Implant relies on a general public awareness of hard and well-publicised facts(AUGER, 2012, P.158)

”

“

In effect a design speculation requires a ‘perceptual bridge’ between the audience and the concept. (AUGER, 2012, P.140)

These “perceptual bridges” can then be stretched in precise ways: this might be a technical perception such as extrapolating how they think a technology is likely to develop; a psychological perception such as not breaking taste or behaviour taboos; or a cultural perception such as exploiting nostalgia or familiarity with a particular subject. […](AUGER, 2012, P.180)

”

“

Bridge: makes the strange probable

In effect a design speculation requires a ‘perceptual bridge’ between the audience and the concept. (AUGER, 2012, P.140)

These “perceptual bridges” can then be stretched in precise ways: this might be a technical perception such as extrapolating how they think a technology is likely to develop; a psychological perception such as not breaking taste or behaviour taboos; or a cultural perception such as exploiting nostalgia or familiarity with a particular subject. […](AUGER, 2012, P.180)

”

“

[…] something legible despite its foreignness(BLEECKER, 2009, P.35).

The success of this process requires viewers to occupy a “fecund middle-ground”(S. BARDZELL ET AL., 2012).

Things have to be not-quite-right; this awkwardness is a way into the object(DUNNE & RABY, 2009).

If it was too correct and as expected, they would glance once and move on. If the object is too open-ended in terms of meaning, then it can seem empty.(DUNNE & RABY, 2001, P.2).

A slight strangeness is the key— too weird and they are instantly dismissed, not strange enough and they’re absorbed into everyday reality(DUNNE & RABY, 2001, P.63).

If a speculative design proposal strays too far into the future to present clearly implausible concepts or describes a completely alien technological habitat, the audience will fail to relate to the proposal, resulting in a lack of engagement or connection.(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)

This effectively heightened the familiar aspect of the uncanny experience. [...] This encouraged the audience to reflect on how they themselves might use the battery, countering the initial repulsion factor and resulting in a form of desirable uncanny. (AUGER, 2012)

”

“

Balance: not too much nor not enough

If a speculative design proposal strays too far into the future to present clearly implausible concepts or describes a completely alien technological habitat, the audience will fail to relate to the proposal, resulting in a lack of engagement or connection.(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)

This effectively heightened the familiar aspect of the uncanny experience. [...] This encouraged the audience to reflect on how they themselves might use the battery, countering the initial repulsion factor and resulting in a form of desirable uncanny. (AUGER, 2012)

”

“

Balance: not too much nor not enough

If a speculative design proposal strays too far into the future to present clearly implausible concepts or describes a completely alien technological habitat, the audience will fail to relate to the proposal, resulting in a lack of engagement or connection.(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)

This effectively heightened the familiar aspect of the uncanny experience. [...] This encouraged the audience to reflect on how they themselves might use the battery, countering the initial repulsion factor and resulting in a form of desirable uncanny. (AUGER, 2012)

”

“

If a speculative design proposal strays too far into the future to present clearly implausible concepts or describes a completely alien technological habitat, the audience will fail to relate to the proposal, resulting in a lack of engagement or connection.(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)

This effectively heightened the familiar aspect of the uncanny experience. [...] This encouraged the audience to reflect on how they themselves might use the battery, countering the initial repulsion factor and resulting in a form of desirable uncanny. (AUGER, 2012)

”

“Freud goes on to suggest that by using the uncanny, ‘the story-teller has a peculiarly directive power over us; by means of the moods he can put us into, he is able to guide the current of our emotions’.” (AUGER, 2012, P.138-150)

[…] and how it can be consciously manipulated to elicit reaction.(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)

“

If a speculative design proposal strays too far into the future to present clearly implausible concepts or describes a completely alien technological habitat, the audience will fail to relate to the proposal, resulting in a lack of engagement or connection.(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)

This effectively heightened the familiar aspect of the uncanny experience. [...] This encouraged the audience to reflect on how they themselves might use the battery, countering the initial repulsion factor and resulting in a form of desirable uncanny. (AUGER, 2012)

”

“Freud goes on to suggest that by using the uncanny, ‘the story-teller has a peculiarly directive power over us; by means of the moods he can put us into, he is able to guide the current of our emotions’.” (AUGER, 2012, P.138-150)

[…] and how it can be consciously manipulated to elicit reaction.(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)

“

UNCANNY unsettles your emotions,when something feels bothfamiliar and unfamiliar

As a way to engage the audience

ISHIGURO, HIROSHI. (2010). GEMINIOID

Uncanny: when something feels both

familiar and unfamiliar

Used as a design principlefor engaging people

Balance: not too much nor not enoughBridge: makes the strange probable

Uncanny: when something feels both

familiar and unfamiliar

Used as a design principlefor engaging people

Balance: not too much nor not enoughBridge: makes the strange probable

3. USECASE: DOG&BONE

3. USECASE: DOG&BONE

http://vimeo.com/maxmollon/dogandbone

?

Balance: not too much nor not enoughBridge: makes the strange probable

BRIDGE

BRIDGE

BRIDGE

…

…

BALANCE

BALANCE

BALANCE

4. FRAMEWORK: RHETORIC

4. FRAMEWORK: RHETORIC

RHETORICAn art of persuasion• Legitimacy • Logic• Emotions

RHETORICAn art of persuasion• Legitimacy • Logic• Emotions

RHETORICAn art of persuasion• Legitimacy • Logic• Emotions

RHETORICAn art of persuasion• Legitimacy • Logic• Emotions

ARISTOTLE, RHYS, R. W., INGRAM, B., & FRIEDRICH, S. (1954). RHETORIC. NEW YORK: MODERN LIBRARY

SPECULATIVE DESIGN:DESIGNING AN UNCANNY-ENOUGH ARTEFACT

TO TRIGGER THE AUDIENCE REFLECTION

RHETORICAn art of persuasion• Emotions• Legitimacy • Logic

UNCANNY• A pecreptual bridge to.

strangeness makes it probable & legible

• Balance (un)familiarity

(TAKE-AWAY SLIDE)

CONCLUSIONS & LIMITATIONS

CONCLUSIONS & LIMITATIONS

MAX MOLLONPh.D. CANDIDATEINTERACTION DESIGN RESEARCH BY PRACTICE

SACRe PSL ENSADLab/ Sociable Media Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab

ANNIE GENTESASSOCIATE PR.INFORMATION ANDCOMMUNICATION SCIENCES

Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab & Media Studies

DESIGN RESEARCH CONFERENCE 2014UMEÅ, SWEDEN, 2014 JUNE 16-19TH

THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT